Research on campaign overspending public finance yada yadas the benefits of more money; more reach, more information. See Benefits of Campaign Spending.
In the study there is a cap, the reach of more information pretty much stops at $1,500,000 in 1996. In 2008 the dollar is worth far less than it was worth in 1996. Double the amount to 3million. That’s about where all candidates should be allowed to spend.
In October 2008 Mayor Bloomberg was fighting for nonpartisanship with Governor Schwartzenager. He rebuffed the questioner on term limits. He said that is exactly what they are fighting for; the right of people to vote for a rich list of candidates. He restated that he doesn’t believe in more than two term limits except in his case. No matter which way the wind blows Mr. Bloomberg’s ego, the truth is he forbid the people of New York City to vote on the extension of term limits; he deprived them of their right to decide.
Mayor Bloomberg overspent Mark Green 5-1 in his first mayoral candidacy ($75 million in 2001 and $74 million in 2005, planning to spend $100 million for 2009).
President Obama overspent McCain 6-1 for his presidential win. Obama spent
$573M, McCain spent $293M and Nader spent $3M. (Electoral votes: Obama 364 and McCain 162).
Isn’t it true of both races that there is a point when the voter is beyond the point of questioning or examining the information they are being given; they are being blasted by sheer propaganda; they are indoctrinated?
Since both winners had the organizational finesse to amass the money required for the indoctrination they are vindicated from their deceipt?
Isn’t it true that past the $3 million dollar mark you are not spending on information, you are spending on indoctrination?